PRIME NEWS POST
The INDONESIAN,(DENPASAR )— Legal counsel for A.A. Ngurah Darmawan — the reported party from Puri Ukir — Irjen. Pol. Drs. I Wayan Sukawinaya, M.Si., has highlighted a series of irregularities in the land dispute case over property located at Subak Kerdung, Pulau Moyo Street, Pedungan, Denpasar, Bali.
Sukawinaya conveyed these concerns during a statement in Denpasar on Thursday (24/9/2026). He raised questions about the legal process that has positioned A.A. Ngurah Darmawan as the reported party in a case involving alleged forgery of documents or land title deeds.
The land at the center of the dispute is stated to measure approximately 7,000 square meters. However, according to Puri Ukir’s legal representative, discrepancies exist in recorded land area between the documents submitted by the reporting party and those held by Puri Ukir.
Discrepancies in Area and Ownership Documents
Counsel stated that the reporting party, identified as representing Puri Kaleran, claims the disputed land measures 4,764 square meters within the Subak Kerdung area on Pulau Moyo Street.
This claim, Sukawinaya noted, is based in part on a Regional Tax Assessment Notice (STPD) bearing Tax Object Number (NOP) 51.71.010.002.012.0118.0, which lists an area of 4,764 square meters.
In contrast, Puri Ukir asserts the disputed land spans approximately 7,000 square meters, or 0.680 hectares.
Puri Ukir claims to hold supporting documents including the Original Pipil — or Land Title Record — No. 456/Dps/1979, as well as Land and Building Tax (PBB) payment records that cite an area of 7,000 square meters.
These differing area figures and documentary foundations form key points of contention in the ongoing legal proceedings.
Legal Counsel Questions Evidence Presented in Court
Sukawinaya further stated that across several hearings, A.A. Ngurah Darmawan has been able to produce documents he says verify the land’s history and his possession of the property.
Conversely, counsel claims the opposing party has yet to present their original Pipil — the document they cite as the basis of their ownership claim — before the court.
Given this situation, Sukawinaya questioned the legal basis for designating A.A. Ngurah Darmawan — from Puri Ukir, who asserts possession of original land documents — as a suspect.
He indicated potential legal irregularities in the process and called for all ownership documents to be examined objectively by law enforcement authorities.
“Our side will fight to fully uncover what appears to be land mafia practices in Bali, so that actions like these claim no further victims and cause no further loss to others in the future,” Sukawinaya stated.
Demanding Evidence-Based Legal Process
Puri Ukir’s legal counsel emphasized that they do not oppose legal proceedings — provided those proceedings are grounded in evidence and due process.
According to Sukawinaya, the original Pipil records, property tax payment histories, and other land documents must be verified and compared against those relied upon by the opposing party.
He also urged law enforcement and relevant agencies to conduct a comprehensive review of document provenance, land area, tax payment records, and the legal basis for issuing each party’s documentation.
“All we ask is a transparent, evidence-based process. Every document must be assessed and verified so that this matter is brought fully to light — and no new victims are created,” he said.
Meanwhile, A.A. Ngurah Darmawan — the reported party from Puri Ukir — remains the subject of legal status questions in this case.
This matter remains an ongoing legal dispute between the parties. All claims regarding ownership, document validity, and alleged legal violations are subject to proof through due process and official verification by authorized bodies.
